Appeal 3276865

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a balcony balustrade at [site address] , Swardeston, Norwich, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/0865, dated 16 April 2021, subject to the following condition: The development hereby permitted is that shown on plan ‘description: [postcode] ’.

The application form identified that the work had been completed prior to the point at which the application was made. Therefore, the plans submitted with the application are intended to be a representation of what is already there. There is nothing before me to indicate that there is any discrepancy between the plans and the development, as built, and I have proceeded on the basis that they are an accurate representation. In other words, planning permission is sought for the development as it exists on the ground.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers having regard to overlooking.

The appeal site is a two storey detached dwelling finished with a rendered finish to the external walls. To the front of the property is an integral flat-roofed garage. The metal and glass balustrade has been erected around the edge of the flat roof of the garage at first floor level.

The appeal site has a wide plot and there is a significant separation distance between No.34 and the adjacent property known as [name]. The fence along the boundary between No.34 and [name] rises to around 2.5 metres high for a short distance between the side of [name] where it borders its rear garden area. The height of the fence provides significant screening from the balcony balustrade and anyone likely to be using it. Although views between the balcony balustrade and [name] are currently restricted by the presence of a static caravan on site, even without the caravan present, I consider any potential for overlooking would be minimal.

The siting of the balcony and balustrade above the integral garage of No.34 is such that any visibility into the rear garden of [name] would mostly be at an oblique angle. There is a significant separation distance between the development and [name], which, combined with the presence of screening from the boundary fence limits any overlooking. I consider that the limited overlooking that might be possible would be at a level that would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers.

In light of the above, I conclude that the development would not harm the living conditions of adjoining occupiers having regard to overlooking. As such, it would comply with policies DM3.4 and DM3.13 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (2015) which state respectively that extensions and conversions will be permitted where they do not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and development should ensure a reasonable standard of amenity reflecting the character of the local area avoiding overlooking.

As the development has been carried out, no standard time limit has been imposed. However, a condition is required to specify that the development permitted is as per the submitted plan.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.